Are we in the "Resort Course Age"?

[Peter Pallotta]

Not that there's anything wrong with it, but increasingly over the last 20+ years or so the consensus approach (across a range of architects and design styles) seems to be characterized by:

1. Strategic (as opposed to penal) bunkering
2. Wide Fairways
3. Multiple tees
4. Purposely-created half-par holes and short 4s
5. Few water hazards, save for perhaps a cape style 18th
6. Sometimes rumpled but almost never significantly canted fairways
7. Uniformly good 'visibility' and a first-time-user friendly ethos
8. Lovely visuals, i.e. an artistic/aesthetic sensibility (whether rugged or pristine)
9. Greens with a focus on "fun"

Of course, I'm not suggesting that elements/qualities 1-9 don't make for good and even great golf. But looking at that list is it too far off to suggest that, whether it's Nicklaus or C&C or Young or Fazio or Devries or Doak or Dyes or  Cowley or Brauer or Hanse, the vast majority of architects are all, in their different ways, creating resort courses?

In the decades to come, will the narrative be:  Golden Age 1-The Private Course; the Dark Ages; the Age of Excess and Eye-Candy; Golden Age 2-The Resort Course.

And to borrow from myself from Joe's thread on non-hazardous bunkers, if this is so is it because golfers in general today are wealthy enough and willing to spend enough disposable income on golf that no one feels they can "afford to be made to look ridiculous"?   

Peter     

[Tim Gavrich]

I feel like I've read a lot of articles recently insisting that people are spending a little more of their disposable income on "experiences" like (golf) vacations, rather than possessions, lately. If anything, that probably puts a bigger emphasis on the need for golf courses (and their developers) to create as strong a first impression as possible, which runs a little bit against what much of our merry band of golfers seems to believe constitutes the very best sort of architecture: courses that pull you in the first time, but reveal themselves to be even better over multiple rounds.


If it turns out to be the case that water becomes a markedly more and more precious commodity over the coming decades, I wonder if those wide fairways might become a bit of a burden to certain layouts.


Peter, I think your formula is excellent in a vacuum, and still really good in reality, but I wonder whether there are certain external factors that are going to conspire to put some limits on that formula over time.


So, to answer your question, "Yes." But either that Age might not turn out to be Golden, or it may be somewhat brief.

[Jason Topp]

The canted fairways observation is a good one that I have never thought about before.  I do not recall too many on modern courses but have not exactly done an inventory to see if it holds up.

Although it might be captured in your list, I would explicitly add that courses in the Resort Course Age tend to yield dramatic photographs for advertising. 

[Jim Hoak]

I think this trend toward resorts and golf-themed retirement housing developments is the biggest factor on golf course architecture in the recent period.  I have been disappointed there hasn't been more discussion of this on GCA.  In many ways the golf course developer is more influential on what the course becomes than the architect.  When architects, like Tom Fazio, build the courses they do, I am willing to forgive them for many things I don't like because they are building to a business plan dictated by a developer.  Pretty, not strategic.  Many tee options for many differing levels of golfers.  Goofy green complexes, springing from miniature golf.  Playable with concave fairways.  Etc.  It's all driven by the person paying the bills and employing the architect for the business project he wants.
Thankfully, Mike Keiser and his various projects are the ending gasp of that trend and the beginning of the next.  Destination golf course developments without housing have saved golf architecture with a reversion to the past.

[BCowan]

I don't agree with this.  Pinehurst, The Homestead, Mid Pines/Pine Needles, and the Balsams just to name a few were and are high end resorts that came out in the Golden Age.  The Golden Age seems to me to be a period when we didn't have as many courses as people playing the game, so courses were built.  Golfers aren't wealthy today, it's all cheap credit and living above your needs.  Heck we are told the Great Depression happened because people stopped spending money, so that is what they are doing.  Just because a few modern day resort courses get talked about on here regularly doesn't mean they represent the game as a whole. 

[Josh Tarble]

Just because a few modern day resort courses get talked about on here regularly doesn't mean they represent the game as a whole. 

I shouldn't even respond to this...your post is not only off-topic, but also completely wrong.  New resorts absolutely represent where course architecture is going.  Places like Kohler, Bandon, Kiawah, Cabo del Sol, Streamsong, etc. all built within the last 25 years and all feature a majority of Peter's criteria. 

To say the architecture of those places are not driving the current direction is asinine.

[BCowan]

Just because a few modern day resort courses get talked about on here regularly doesn't mean they represent the game as a whole. 

I shouldn't even respond to this...your post is not only off-topic, but also completely wrong.  New resorts absolutely represent where course architecture is going.  Places like Kohler, Bandon, Kiawah, Cabo del Sol, Streamsong, etc. all built within the last 25 years and all feature a majority of Peter's criteria. 

To say the architecture of those places are not driving the current direction is asinine.

Kiawah opened in 1976.  Bandon, Kohler, Cabo, and Streamsong aren't any different then the resorts I mentioned in my post. You are going to tell me that Kohler is like Streamsong and that people who play them can actually explain golf course architecture?  Please, the fact you think that proves how out of touch you are.  Sounds like Matty G talking points.  They are awesome pieces of property financed by very wealthy people/companies, just like the resorts of 100 years ago.  There are many golf courses that get looked over on here daily that are doing well and have been built in the last 25 years.   

[Ronald Montesano]

Ben isn't that off-target, so you should respond to him, Josh.


I think that Peter's "age" is not defined by a beginning point. That is our first task. When would this RCA have commenced?


The next step would be to compile a list of courses that fit the PP description, and those that don't, that fit within the RCA. Extra credit would be given to those who give examples of same from a prior "age."


At that juncture, rather than just firing missive missiles at each other, we will have data to agree or disagree with PP's question/assertion.

[Josh Tarble]

Kiawah Ocean - 1991

Please Ben, list some of these overlooked courses that are driving the current trends of architecture, inspiring more courses to be built.

[BCowan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiawah_Island_Golf_Resort

 May of 76.  Of course you think everyone just plays the Dye course. 

   Overlooked courses don't drive trends.  They exist to serve their local customers. It isn't about inspiring it's about serving a need and making a profit.  Drive through your town of Indy, are their courses built in the last 25 years?  Purgatory ring a bell?  The last 25 years should be known as the Upscale Public Golf age of Architecture. 

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,

I have no issue with you calling them "resort" courses.  For me, Idc what the label is, as long as its a quality golf course.

But I wouldn't discount all the terrific new privates that have been built in that same time frame too,  I could go on and on rattling them off.  But it seems like Mike Keiser is almost singlehandly responsible for the big up-tic in quality top notch "resort" courses....where the general location isn't the draw like Hawaii or Puerto Rico, but the quality of the golf and the experience is.

P.S.  For some, these new resorts like Bandon and Streamsong is where the guy who can't afford a full time CC membership, can at least have a similar experience over a long weekend.

[Mark Pritchett]

RE KIAWAH:  As I recall Turtle Point opened in the early 80's and Osprey Point in the late 80's.  The Ocean Course in 1991 and Cougar Point a few years later.

[Mike_Young]

Just because a few modern day resort courses get talked about on here regularly doesn't mean they represent the game as a whole. 

I shouldn't even respond to this...your post is not only off-topic, but also completely wrong.  New resorts absolutely represent where course architecture is going.  Places like Kohler, Bandon, Kiawah, Cabo del Sol, Streamsong, etc. all built within the last 25 years and all feature a majority of Peter's criteria. 

To say the architecture of those places are not driving the current direction is asinine.

Josh,
I hope not to sound asinine in my response but golf development and golf course architecture are two different things.  You have to keep in mind that this site is a golf snob site much like a cigar magazine etc.  Other than a few select courses there is no trend in golf architecture right now.  There are some really big developments in planning right now that contain golf but are of no interest to this site....

[Josh Tarble]

Mike,
Perhaps development was more what I was referring to.

You are clearly more plugged into the industry than I, but to say there is no trend in architecture seems silly to me. Perhaps these trends aren't effecting you.  But to look at courses from RTJ like Chambers Bay and recent designs from Nicklaus, it does seem like there are clear influences/trends from some of the top resort courses.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike, all -
I think you may be misunderstanding me and/or I didn't make myself clear:

I'm not referring only to courses that are clearly recognized/designated as resort courses (e.g. one down by a beach in Mexico); I'm suggesting that the vast majority of ALL courses built in the last 20+ years -- by you or Jeff B or Jack or Paul or Tom etc -- might well be called "resort courses".

I'm suggesting that, for whatever their surface differences may be, the vast majority of ALL courses manifest those same qualities that, taken together 1-through-9,  characterize what used to be thought of as "resort courses"

In short, I'm taking a bird's eye view and throwing out the theory that our 'age' could be looked back on as one where the 'ethos' of the resort course influenced all of gca.

Peter

[Mike_Young]

Josh and Peter,
I am completely confused.  Are you both saying there is a trend in design style based on resort courses?

[Josh Tarble]

I definitely got off topic, hence why I said I shouldn't even reply earlier. 

But I think what Peter is trying to say, is that any of these new courses, regardless of actual type, could do well at a resort or as a resort type course.

[BHoover]

I don't know what this age should be called, but the courses that seem to get built now are high-end resorts.

Time will tell if they are sustainable. But the investment of capital suggests these places have staying power.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike -

I'm saying that you are ALL building what I'm calling "resort courses", and have been for the last 20+ years. 

I'm saying that the apparent differences between various architects (as different 'on paper' as you and Jack and Jeff and Tom and RTJ and Gil H etc) are a lot less significant than the similarities you share. 

I'm saying that there is nothing (necessarily) wrong with this seemingly consensus approach.

I'm saying that we are indeed probably living in a second golden age -- but one of a particular kind,  with its own particular but very definite value-system.

I'm saying that this value system -- one that highly esteems points 1-9 of my original post -- is not the only possible value system in regards quality gca. 

I'm saying that the popular press and the collective opinion seems to have completely forgotten (the very obvious point) that our current value system is not the only legitimate one. 

I'm suggesting that we are all too close to our own time and our own underlying beliefs/tastes to recognize that everything being built is [what I am calling] a resort course.

I'm suggesting there may be some value in raising for discussion here the possibility that most of us are missing the forest for the trees -- and not because I don't think the forest a lovely one

I'm suggesting that if there is value in this kind of thread/discussion, it is as a small counter-balance to the seemingly near-unanimous and unquestioning support for this one particular value system by many in the industry - media, architects, key developers and even the USGA

Peter 

PS - this is what I had in mind with my "conservative times" thread from a while back, i.e. suggesting that we are living in a period of gca (not politics) that has embraced one singular and dominate value system 

[Mike_Young]

The courses that get the publicity are the high end resort courses.  Yes, no doubt that is the case.  Plus they have the revenue stream to pay for advertising on a national level.  AND they are some very good works.   As I reread PP main topic I don't think these places were "made easier" to save someone from looking ridiculous.  BUT I do think we need to do such around the country for our everyday golf courses.

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,

I think what many are confused about is your coining of a good well designed and conceived golf course as a "resort course", which I personally would disagree with.

Many resort courses are good and well designed, but there are many that are not.  I don't equate "resort course" = well designed course and fun to play with a good variety of holes.

[BCowan]

http://www.golfdigest.com/gallery/2015-best-new-courses#10

I don't understand and I think this outlook is due to Golf Channel and from GCA.com continually bringing up certain Resorts.  Whitten's Best New for 2015 has 20 courses.  Only 3 of them are Resort courses.  I'd say that this is the Era of Daily Fee  Architecture.  I also don't agree with 4, 5, and 9 on the list  . 

[Kalen Braley]

http://www.golfdigest.com/gallery/2015-best-new-courses#10

I don't understand and I think this outlook is due to Golf Channel and from GCA.com continually bringing up certain Resorts.  Whitten's Best New for 2015 has 20 courses.  Only 3 of them are Resort courses.  I'd say that this is the Era of Daily Fee  Architecture.  I also don't agree with 4, 5, and 9 on the list  .

I suspect most of the best courses built in the last 20 years are either private or expensive daily fee courses.

Just the privates alone, is a massive long list, and contain most of the best stuff built.  Shall we get a list started of top notch privates to resort courses in the last 20 years??

[Peter Pallotta]

Kalen -
your post #20 captures it in a nutshell. That is, you are noticing the differences and I am focusing on the similarities. I'm suggesting that looked at through a certain lens/theory - mine, a tentative one but not outlandish or without any merit, I don't think -- the latter far outweigh the former.

Ben -
yes, Golf Digest only designates 3 as "resort courses". My suggestion is that GD and RW are wrong, and that they are missing something important (i.e. see my last two posts). They are part of/drivers of the very consensus I'm trying to highlight

Peter

[Mike_Young]

Peter,
Glamour and star power are what attract so many to thinking they want to be golf architects today.  Once that is out of the picture then things will clean up and balance out.  I'm not saying the TD's and GH's should not be getting what they get.  I'm all for it and the possibility it allows for any of us but the constant striving to try and do those projects for the regional guy will get him nowhere.  The concept of just drawing plans and making site visits is not a viable way of going forward in this business anymore for most of us. 

Thinking of another field such as law....so many of us see the glamour as a F Lee Bailey or a Johnny Cochran but there are a lot of guys out there that do well with it in their respective type practice.  And not all are what you expect.   I have one lawyer friend who is a member of at least 8 private clubs and tries to play almost everyday, often at many of the better clubs in the country.   He freaks out many lawyers.  Here is one of his TV Ads...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnLrWyCw_MI